Impact of Enhanced Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) on Firm Performance through Green Supply Chain Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the paper is interesting and up-to-date. The literature basis is good and the research methodology is well described.
The paper itself has some flaws worth improving:
- Describe what is the research gap of the paper and what new is in it.
- Describe the paper goal and research questions.
- Please describe the links between the research gap and the goal of the paper and research question. Write why the paper is important. What is the main contribution of the paper to the field?
- Please describe some limitation of the study.
- Describe the social impact of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time to review our paper. We have read your comments and we have tried our best to revise the paper following your comments. We hope the revision has complied with your comment. In case any further revision is required, we are happy to do it.
Please find attached our work in revising the paper.
Best regards
Hotlan Siagian
o/b authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript impact of enhanced enterprise resource planning (ERP) on firm performance through green supply chain management deals with a relevant topic. Even though the manuscript provides some new insights the explanation why this study is important is missing. Moreover, a further explanation of how the research results contribute to the existing knowledge is needed.
In regards to the conceptual model development and hypotheses formulation, I have several comments. When reading through the rationale behind hypotheses development I wondered what is the difference between supplier integration and green supply chain management from the IT perspective. Furthermore, I noticed that internal integration and internal integration system are used interchangeably. Similarly, it is with supplier integration and supplier integration system. Additionally, the hypotheses should be more clearly stated. I assume you want to measure the positive effect of one construct on another.
The presentation of the methodological approach should be improved by providing more information about survey instrument development, which items/questions were used, and from where they were derived. Furthermore, R2 values for dependent constructs could also be reported.
As already mentioned more emphasis should be given to the theoretical as well as managerial implications. Moreover, limitations and further research directions could be provided.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you very much for your time to review our paper. We have read it carefully and we have tried our best to improve the paper. We hope the revision has complied with your request. In case any further revision is required, we are glad to do it.
Please find attached the detailed response to your comment.
Thank you very much for your attention
Best regards
Hotlan Siagian
o/b of authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper describes the impact of enhanced ERP systems on the firm performance through green supply chain managment.
For this the authors elaborated 7 hypotheses and executed -as it seems- a qantitative -questionnaire bases study on 135 industrial companies.
The authors described the measurement indicators in a roughly way and not very detailed. Therefore for the reader it is not visible HOW exacly the authors measured the intensity for an item. There is also no scale given on which the reader can see the answers or even the questions asked.
The paper contains a table of the finally processed answers and findings executed with the least sqaure method. But the paper does not show the single answers and the detaield research methodeolgy. Therefore it is not comprehensible (in the scientifc sense) what the authors did in detail.
In the abstract the sentence "green supply chain management...." is in its meaning "tripelt". Please remove
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your time to review our paper. We have tried our best to revise the paper following your comments. We hope the revision has complied with your comments. in case further improvement is still required, we are glad to do it.
best regards
Hotlan S
o/b authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have implemented my remarks.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we thank you very much for your contribution in reviewing and improving our paper.
Best regards
hotlan Siagian
o/b authors
Reviewer 2 Report
I went through the revised manuscript and the author's reply. The authors have improved the manuscript and provide clarifications. However, I still have concerns regarding the items used in this survey. Even though the authors have provided them in the literature review section, it is still not clear from where some of them were derived. Furthermore, it also seems that ERP system usage items (except for EERP3) were not adopted from references 38 and 39 as the authors stated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments on the first revised paper. Based on your comment, please be advised of the following explanation:
Your comments:
I went through the revised manuscript and the author's reply. The authors have improved the manuscript and provide clarifications. However, I still have concerns regarding the items used in this survey. Even though the authors have provided them in the literature review section, it is still not clear from where some of them were derived. Furthermore, it also seems that ERP system usage items (except for EERP3) were not adopted from references 38 and 39 as the authors stated.
Our Response
We have checked in detail regarding your comment and you are right that we missed one article where the indicator of the ERP derived from. The article is reference number 39 and we added it to the section of the manuscript. For your information, actually, the indicators used are not derived from only one previous study, but, for Enhanced ERP, we adopted from two articles that we consider relevant to our study (39 and 40). For other indicators also adopted from one or two articles relevant to the study.
To make it clearer to the reader, we have assigned each indicator the related reference number where it derived from as follows:
Enhanced ERP, (Line 271 -274)
The measurement used in this study adopted Tarigan et al. [39] and Ince et al. [40], namely ERP system quality function (EERP1) [39], ERP system information quality (EERP2) [39,40], ERP system used intensively (EERP3) [40], ERP system on personal impact (EERP4) [39,40], and ERP system on organizational impact (EERP5) [40].
Firm Performance, Line 316-319
The indicators used in this study are the quality of the products produced by the company (FP1) [41, 43], reduction of production costs (FP2) [5,41], reducing lead time (FP3) [41,43], reducing the company's inventory level (FP4) [5,41], and reducing product returns from customers (FP5) [41].
Internal integration Line 244-249
Research conducted by Jajja et al. [11] and Titah et al. [33] become an indicator of this research related to internal integration, namely, joint decisions between departments concerned with considering company margins (In. I1) [11], joint decisions between departments related to inventory levels (In.I2) [11], sharing decisions related to company goals (I.In3) [11], sharing decisions related to pricing (I.In4) [33], and sharing related decisions with product shipments (I.In5) [33].
Supplier integration Line 204-207
The indicators used are sharing information with suppliers (S.In1) [11], collaborating with suppliers (S.In2) [11], determining shared goals with suppliers (S.In3) [23], sharing ideas in innovating processes (S.In4) [19], and determining decisions together with suppliers (S.In5) [11].
Green supply chain management Line 165-168
This study establishes indicators in measuring GSCM is cooperation with suppliers (GSCM1) [3], green purchasing (GSCM2) [18], green manufacturing (GSCM3) [18], policy management (GSCM4) [4], and government regulations (GSCM5) [4].
Based on this explanation, please be assured that the indicators used in the study are derived from previous studies.
We hope with this explanation, your comment has been explained accordingly.
Please also find attached the revised paper for your consideration.
Thank you very much for your kind suggestion to improve this paper.
Best regards
Hotlan Siagian
o/b authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Now after the additional revision by the authors the text is fine
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you very much for your contribution to review and improve our paper.
Best regards
Hotlan Siagian
o/b authors
